That should not be the standard. I hate when I see people saying things like this, because we could justify almost anything by using that subterranean bar.
This is below even that. This is entirely based on a divorce filing - you know, the type of thing that gets thrown around at the end of contentious marriages, like the divorce in question.
It’s literally, “I think he’s cheating on me with that tramp!” blown into astronomical proportions. And it has as much basis in evidence as every other complaint lodged against her in this thread.
How Muslim baby formula causes immigrants to marry their guns to get a green card.
Brown woman with foreign-sounding name gets uppity, attracts vultures
Uppity Omar sounds like an old-time radio show.
And now I’m suddenly imagining Ilhan Omar as the star of an old-school animated TV show, like Betty Boop. 
“Important safety tip…thanks, Egon.”
:rolleyes:
Which country/ies are you referring to, specifically?
AFAICT, while of course no other country uses the exact same wording in their protection of freedom of religion as the US Constitution’s First Amendment does, every country that you would presumably consider “progressive and very non-anarchistic” has legal provisions explicitly guaranteeing freedom of religion.
So your childish demand for a national legal framework that doesn’t even mention religion is still a bunch of bullshit as far as realistic protections against theocratic oppression are concerned.
Cue badly-Photoshopped picture of a flapper Omar in a speakeasy with a cartoon dog.
Then explain to me how France banned burqas.
Damn you, Obamacare!
The ban is not specific to burqas. It specifies that no one may wear masks or other garments that obscure the face in a public space. This does not apply to religious spaces.
The ban applies to everyone, and specifically exempts religious uses.
But don’t let facts slow you down.
But it’s clearly a law that would not pass U.S. constitutional muster. Correct?
Depends how many islamophobes the SC is padded out with, no?
What do you suppose you’re proving with this example?
Seems to me you’re making an arguement against yourself.
You are trying to argue that your country’s constitution shouldn’t even make mention of religion, right? Or did I get that wrong?
I was wondering the same. If I recall, SlackerInc has been arguing freedom of/from religion should not be in the Constitution, because other countries don’t have the same severe protections and don’t have any problem with protecting religious expression.
So he points out how a country that doesn’t have the same severe protections restricts religious expression.
That said, this entire thread is an exercise in mental masturbation of right wing talking points. The most potent cites are from Republican communication directors and an estranged wife’s divorce claim.
::checks in::
oh, this thread is till going.
right
You are right.
No, I am against “protecting religious expression”. If I don’t have the right to do it for “shits ‘n’ giggles”, you shouldn’t have the right to do it because you belong to a big club of people who believe a bunch of woo written in a book thousands of years ago.
But my point was that countries like France don’t have our constitutional protection of religion, yet they also don’t have the parade of horribles Kimstu darkly warned of.
I just googled “does france’s constitution mention religion”.
It does.
So . . . . . .
France’s constitution guarantees religious freedom.
What it doesn’t have is America’s strict separation of church and state.
Would you prefer that America also relax it’s separation of church and state?
Or do you just feel it’s unnecessary baggage?